Posted
by
BeauHDon Wednesday May 16, 2018 @08:45PM
from the label-maker dept.

travers_r writes: Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle affirmed last week that all coffee sold in California must come with a warning label stating that chemicals in coffee (acrylamide, a substance created naturally during the brewing process) are known to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. But judges, journalists, and environmental advocates fail to recognize the critical difference between probably and certainly, which fuels the inaccurate belief that cancer is mostly caused by things in the environment. From a report at Undark: "IARC is one of the leading scientific bodies in the world, and it is also one of several expert panels on which California relies for scientific opinions in such cases. The IARC has concluded that while there is sufficient evidence to consider acrylamide carcinogenic in experimental animals, there is insufficient evidence for carcinogenicity in humans. Therefore, its overall evaluation is that 'acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans.'
[...]
Leading experts, in fact, believe that roughly two-thirds of all cancers are the result of mutations to DNA that are caused by natural bodily processes, not exposure to environmental chemicals. This is quite the opposite of the prevailing belief among the public that most cancers are caused by exogenous substances imposed on us by the products and technologies of the modern world. It's this belief -- this fear -- that prompted voters to pass Proposition 65 in 1986. It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals' -- was being seared into the public's mind."

According to California, EVERYTHING causes cancer. We should just stick a label on everything to make sure we cover all our bases.

Warning: Most of California's leadership / residents are complete idiots and, when they move to other States, have a tendency to bring their own special brand of stupidity with them. Which, they then demand that their new home city adopt the same stupid rules, regulations and ideals that caused them to move away from California in the first place.

They do put those labels on an incredible amount of stuff. I guess I understand the original intent of the warnings, and it seems like they had good intentions. But there comes a point when they need to re-evaluate the utility. When warning labels are on almost everything you see, they reach a point of semantic satiation, where they lose all meaning.

As a product liability issue, if I were selling physical products in California, I'd be tempted to put a warning label on everything I sold, regardless of whether they said I had to. That way, I can't get caught when it turns out that some chemical that was used in the preparation of some part turns out to be on the bad list...

A labeling law was passed by CA voters, and then the technology got better at detecting potential problems. The law probably needs tuning, like everything else subject to scientific and technological progress. Adjust and move on instead of make it into a red-vs-blue troll-war.

The real problem is that it was passed by voters, which means fixing it will either take a long petition/proposition/vote process, or require a large majority in the legislature. Making adjustments in this case is not easy.

The real problem is that it was passed by voters, which means fixing it will either take a long petition/proposition/vote process, or require a large majority in the legislature. Making adjustments in this case is not easy.

The Dems have a supermajority in California legislature which matches the voter demographics. The problem is a majority of people (voters and/or legislators) are still pro-label and anti-change, not that this is difficult to fix, but labelling still appears to represent the majority view...

That's the probably a symptom of democracy. We are collectively subject to the will of the majority..

The last time I was in California, the hotel I was staying at (which was a $400+/night hotel) had a small sign in the lobby that said that the hotel itself was known to the state of California to possibly cause cancer. This, combined with the Disneyland sign (Disneyland also has a sign that says it causes Cancer) should be all the evidence needed to.prove that this law does absolutely nothing and is simply a mocking example of the end result of the direct democracy system in place in California.

The medium is the message. Warning labels on products are viewed by consumers as warnings.

It's the same problem with GMO labeling. If you write on the label that "this product was produced with genetic engineering", people will easily take away the implication that they're being warned away from something harmful—even though it doesn't say that at all.

It was a time when fear of hazardous waste and industrial chemicals was high, when chemophobia -- a blanket fear of anything having to do with the word 'chemicals'

If anything, that is worse today. Point out to someone that broccoli is mostly carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and they get confused. They can't explain what it is exactly that they don't like, but "chemicals" is not the answer.

Acrylamide has been known as a carcinogen for quite a long time, at least for high concentrations in contact with the skin. When you have swallowed it however, it gets submerged in stomach acid which should destroy it.All carbs that have been roasted contain acrylamide, the darker the roasting the higher the concentration. Another known source is bread crust that has been baked a dark brown.

But there is a lot more to cancer risk than ingesting one type of carcinogen.Coffee is also known to contain a high amount of antioxidants that are known to neutralise free radicals -- another group of carcinogens.So the net effect of drinking coffee may in fact be beneficial.

We ingest and inhale all sorts of other carcinogens all the time and cancer cells do form in the body quite often -- but are almost always quickly killed by the immune system! I believe that the best way to avoid getting cancer is to keep a strong immune system by keeping both the body and mind strong and healthy -- and that means most of all to avoid a stressful lifestyle.

BTW. Dark-roasted coffee is overrated anyway. I see no point in drinking something with a taste of tar and with most of the good coffee flavour having been destroyed in the roasting.

They can stop selling coffee in California since they think it's a carcinogen.

That means that all of the coffee drinkers in Silicon Valley will either have to stop or move to some place sane.

This is a double win for those of us in the "flyover" states. Coffee will be cheaper due to decreased demand and companies will be forced to pay higher wages to programmers to lure them to the lands of soybeans and corn where coffee can be had!

THIS is the kind of hyper-over-reaction we've sadly come to accept as "normal". A LABEL somehow means "stop selling coffee in California since they think it's a carcinogen." That's as dumbass as can be. Sean Hannity is just dying to interview you.

Just so ya know, this stupid law was passed in 1986, when a Republican was governor (George Deukmejian). But hey, I don't know why I'm bothering responding to a troll who does care about facts or reality.

1) As a proud, card-carrying, tree-hugging Liberal(TM) I'm dismayed by this as it feeds into that whole "Gummint Bad" mentality that can be fed by such bizarre rulings.

2) As long as there is no outright ban or special tax, ala the "soda tax", which is just stupid, on coffee, then labelling is, IMO, just spreading knowledge. Look at the labels on every gas pump warning that gas fumes are bad. Well, D'uh! As a gas-jockey back in the day, I might have liked to know, but still would likely have made the same

Acrylamide - my, what a nasty sounding word. Do we know that Acrylamide exists in French Fries or Potato Chips? Black Olives? Prunes? Deep frying starchy foods? Yes we do!

Acrylamide scare reminds me a little of the great devil Nitrates/Nitrites. Many people demand only healthy "uncured bacon" to avoid nitrates while happily munching on healthe veggies that contain a lot of Nitrate.
Meanwhile it appears that coffee drinkers live longer and healthier lives.

The warnings are due to Proposition 65 [wikipedia.org] - a citizen's ballot initiative which passed in 1986. It mandates a ridiculously low non-scientific threshold for requiring a cancer warning - a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting cancer due to exposure [cancer.org]. By comparison, your lifetime odds of being killed [iii.org] by car is 1 in 114. By a pool is 1 in 5772. By falling from a ladder is 1 in 7707. By dog attack is 1 in 112,400. By lightning is 1 in 161,856. So we're talking about cancer risk levels which are minuscule compared to other risks you face during your lifetime.

But that's the threshold Prop 65 requires. So practically everything ends up requiring a Prop 65 warning label, including silly things like coffee. The judge can disagree with it, but has to comply with it because the text of the law is very specific. I've often joked that every door leading outside should have a Prop 65 warning above it because sunlight is known to cause cancer (about 1 in 43 people will get skin cancer in their lifetime).

About the only purpose Prop 65 serves is to enrich lawyers who go around finding businesses without the warning sing, and suing them for non-compliance, then settling the lawsuit for a few thousand dollars. The usual victim is an immigrant small business owner who never would've dreamed that such a silly law exists.

Bananas contain potassium. Some of the natural potassium is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-40 which is radioactive and radiates your body. Isaac Asimov once conjectured that the radiation from potassium in animal's bodies is what accelerated evolution - but of course causes cancers too.So let's label bananas!

IARC is not highly respected for the very point made here. There designations ignore dosage. If you drown a lab rat in something and it gets cancer to IARC Its a carcinogen. That pretty much makes everything a carcinogen. Alcohol, campfires, woodworking, they all hold IARCs highest warning. They also do not really take into account the credibility of studies just quantity.

Californians get to suffer a little more because of their legal stupidity. I hope manufacturers will be good enough to use stickers or make California specific packaging (or just stop selling in California) rather than subjecting the rest of us to this lunacy. Personally, I think if it's such a problem then California should just ban Coffee outright.;)

The answer is clearly, you are glambling make your choice but not based upon lies. Some things have a much higher risk than others of generating cancer, cancer being a specific kind of genetic damage that allows sufficient change in your cells DNA to reproduce uncontrollably, not trigger self destruction for excessive change and not be detected by you immune system for eradication.

You can be a PR dickbag and pretend all sorts of bullshit but the simply fact is, those cancer causing substances cause all sor

Or, we could look at what the data say -- there's rather a lot of it. General conclusion: Coffee is more likely to be very slightly, almost invisibly good for you in terms of overall cancer risk, known to reduce the risk for several major cancers and without any solid evidence of increased risk in any (although there are some mixed results). Bearing in mind that coffee can also be decaffeinated with organic solvents and that the studies involved in this large review probably have confounding factors that

Those warning labels are all there already, and have been for years, decades possibly. They are widely ignored because everyone knows it doesn't really mean anything. I haven't RTFA but the "affirmed" in the summary suggests to me the court simply ruled that they are not to be taken down.

I don't know what is or isn't happening with these latest turns of event, but every coffee shop I've been to in the past decade or two (here in California) has already had Prop 65 warnings, and I'm pretty sure they specifically mention acrylamide, and go out of their way to explain that it's just a normal byproduct of the roasting process and not some scary chemical they add to their coffee.

I think I've seen at least numerous burger chains and possibly some bakeries with similar warnings (because browned br

So half the internet acclaims the virtues of Acrylamide, teaching us how to roast meat to browned perfection for the ultimate taste while the other half decries this wonderful gift of nature. Sounds like SJW madness. I think Trump slam-dunking the election has really set off a scare among the pussy hats of the world.

I'm pretty sure that coffee shop already has a prop 65 sign due to some other substance on the premises. The law is enough of a catch-all, and everyone is so numb to it, that I think the only hipsters who freak out are ones visiting from out-of-state.

When I as a European was the first time in the US was all the writing I saw. Not just warning labels, but so much writing. So much that traffic became less safe, because you had to read so much. "No right turn" "No left turn for truck" "Only left turns between 8 and 10 if you are green vehicle."Keep right to turn left on the middle lane on Wednesday afternoon if it rains during summer season"

And then the message in the car mirrors "Images are inverted" or whatever is says.

People are treated as if they are a child and therefore react as if they are one. "But mom, you told me not to hit him. I'm not. He is hitting himself, See?"

On the convex mirror, the label usually reads something like "Objects in mirror are closer than they appear". Not sure they do this in other places, but I'm with you on the excess of writing. Sadly, folks around here don't seem to pay attention to even the most basic of symbology, e.g. red octagons (usually emblazoned with STOP) and the inverted red-bordered triangle (usually emblazoned with YIELD). I feel that a lot of it exists to provide authorities with excuses to get at people, but more importantly to

Acrylamide is not harmful unless it's in amounts equal to a river of coffee.

The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.

I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified. Californians can still drink all of the possibly-c

Everything isn't labeled as cancer causing. It's just that certain carcinogens, like sodium benzoate, are effective and really cheap. So manufacturers put them in (almost) everything. This fact is what creates a market for small, health-focused brands.

I doubt it. The signs are EVERYWHERE. Post office, restaurants, bars, stores, businesses, offices, fire stations, city halls etc etc etc. Have been for years. I suppose it's possible you live in CA and have just been ignoring the signs for so long you no longer 'see them'.

Signs are cheap. How sure are you that you don't have something containing something on the ever growing list? Sure enough to bet your business against a $2 sign? That's one shitty pot ratio.

Now what does Texas law regarding concealed carry of weapons have to do with California's requiring stupid, B.S. warnings for chemicals found in COFFEE? The fact that the state government is in BOTH cases requiring the posting of warning signs that people will largely ignore

Oh boy, you're really reaching. There's no law in Texas requiring you to post such signs. That's just bullshit. People are free to post them or not post them, depending on their own desires. The only thing which the laws stipulate is that IF you decide to post then, THEN the signs must meet certain criteria; otherwise you don't get to have someone arrested/fined just because they didn't see your shitty sign which you stuck in a back room somewhere.

IOW, just like in California, if you don't want to be sued for knowingly having a Carcinogen that you didn't warn about, in Texas, you have to post a sign if you don't want to be sued for telling people they can't have a hand-gun on your property.

That's what the law stipulates. It imposes a liability for those who do something without posting about it.

Which are strictly dictated according to arcane technical parameters of no merit in Texas.

And if you're off by one quarter inch, some gun-toting fag will come into your place of business, wave their.357 magnum in your face, and threaten you with it just because they can.

The rest of your rant makes it clear that you're an idiot, but I will address this section just so that anyone reading it doesn't get the wrong impression.

You've basically just made all that shit up. The law says nothing like that; in fact it quite clearly states the opposite. Section 30.07:

"TRESPASS BY LICENSE HOLDER WITH AN OPENLY CARRIED HANDGUN. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder:

(1) openly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Cod

Oh dude, don't even get started on the Southern or NorthEastern states... these forms will become a full blown competition on who makes the worst laws with categories and subcategories; JD Edwards style.

Which state banned the wife rearranging the furniture without the permission of the husband. Was it Tennessee? I've always pictured 4am bruised shin followed by 2pm "Brothers, we have a domestic crisis at hand".

Sodium benzoate isn't a carcinogen; it's harmless. It can react with ascorbic acid to form benzine, which is a carcinogen. Soft drinks with both frequently do contain benzine, but well below interesting levels. Note that "interesting levels" in consumable products are something like 0.005ppm. Sodas usually don't contain ascorbic acid, so no benzine.

The problem is that this is not established. This assumes the threshold model, while California has decided to play it safe and go with the no-threshold model. We don't know which is correct.

I applaud California for sticking to their guns on their labeling law, in the face of all the guff they get. The no-threshold model makes things easier, and a whole lot more profitable, but disguising a potential health hazard for those reasons is not well justified.

Playing it safe is not the same thing as being safe. What happens when something really causes cancer and everyone ignores it? False alarms are not harmless.

Literally every ingestible is fatal in large doses, and the vast majority of the time, you won't get cancer as a warning that something bad is happening. You just die. The only thing that changes is what a "large dose" is for the substance.

However, this is not a false alarm: these substances, like acrylamide, are

It's a FUD alarm.

known carcinogens in large doses.

So are basically all fruits and virtually everything else you eat or drink. Tap water is allowed to contain 10 ppb arsenic a known carcinogen. Lead is also allowed up to 15 ppb again a known carcinogen. In large doses any water available for anyone to drink is a known carcinogen.

I can go on and on all day long with this BS. Unless you can provide substantive information quantifying meaningful risk

The threshold model is not a great model. After all, low-dose exposure to some carcinogens actually decreases cancer risk. For example, areas with higher background radiation have lower cancer risks than average.

But of course, the bigger problem is that, as currently interpreted, Prop 65 is an absolutely stupid law, because literally everything contains some substance that can cause cancer or reproductive harm. The idea behind Prop 65 — discouraging the use of materials that are known to significantly increase your risk of cancer (e.g. asbestos) and warning people when they might potentially be exposed to it is not entirely without merit. The problem is that the list of substances needs to be much shorter, and the minimum quantity needs to be much higher. Otherwise, it loses all meaning, just as it has.

And let you say, "No, not everything causes cancer or reproductive harm," I'll point out why you're wrong.

First, most foods contain iron. Iron is a required nutrient. If you don't take in enough iron, you will die. However, it also encourages the production of cancer-causing free radicals, so in large quantities, it causes cancer. Whoops.

Many other foods (e.g. bananas) contain potassium, again a required nutrient. A certain percentage of potassium is radioactive. If isolated, you could give someone a fatal dose of radiation poisoning with the potassium extracted from a sufficiently large number of bananas Again, in small quantities, it is beneficial, and in large quantities, it causes cancer. Not good at all.

But it gets better. Every food in existence, by definition, contains carbon, a certain percentage of which is radioactive. You literally cannot eat without consuming something that is at least slightly radioactive. Radiation is known to cause both cancer AND reproductive harm. So every restaurant, whether they serve coffee or not, technically must carry a Prop 65 warning, because they contain organic matter (not to mention any building with a hardwood floor, a wooden door, wooden tables or chairs, etc.)

But the best part of this story is that air contains oxygen, which catalyzes reactions. Oxidative stress is causally linked to cancer. So the freaking air we breathe causes cancer, and if it didn't we couldn't breathe it. So any environment with a breathable atmosphere is known to cause cancer, and any environment without one will kill you before you can reproduce, and thus causes reproductive harm.

In other words, Prop 65, as currently interpreted by the court system, is a complete and utter joke, and we just need to put up a big-ass sign at every highway entrance to the State of California that says "Warning: The entire State of California contains substances known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive harm" and be done with this silly little worthless hack job of a law once and for all.

The threshold model is not a great model. After all, low-dose exposure to some carcinogens actually decreases cancer risk. For example, areas with higher background radiation have lower cancer risks than average.

Yes it is, precisely BECAUSE even vitally necessary substances, like the salt I cited, have a fatal larger dosage. The dosage curve for many things, including radiation, looks like a checkmark: beneficial or neutral in small amounts, then a threshold above which it becomes increasingly toxic.

Prop 65 uses a no-threshold model for everything. Because there is some amount of caffeine that will kill, you have to post a sign in every Starbucks. Actually, the high prices will kill you first.

What unsustainable debt? California is projected to have multi-billion dollar budget surplus and has been socking away billions in its rainy day fund. All improvements since Arnold ran the state into the ground.

Hardcore Liberal here, California may as well jump off the edge of the world and leave the rest of us alone. This is the most ridiculous decisions I have read about in the last, um, well, last week (Trump trumps them all)...but this one is pretty bad.

Only very small portions of California need to make that jump to restore a balanced system. They crazy end of the spectrum is quite localized.

In spite of California legislation, not because of it. Largely a legacy of the largess of defense and aerospace spending and the pure luck of the draw of major natural harbors that are gateways to the entire country. In other words California's financial success is largely due to the rest of the country, not so much its own doing, and especially not the California legislature's doing.

[...] Paul Harvey's news segments. A regulator tells an established small diner that given the number of customers the establishment seats an additional toilet must be installed. To resize the bathroom or build a second would eat up a large chunk of the seating in the diner. Of course the owner's appeals were denied. The Regulatory State must be appeased. His solution was to install a fully functioning toilet in the front display window of the diner. And now you know the rest of the story.